Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Saroop Vs. State of Punjab

Ram Saroop vs State of Punjab

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 11, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1064947

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Saroop

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt

in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m-40631 of 2012(o&m) date of decision:11. 02.2013 ram saroop ..petitioner versus state of punjab ..respondent coram:hon'ble mr.justice vijender singh malik present:- mr.b.r.gupta, advocate for the petitioner. mr.amit chaudhry, dag punjab. vijender singh malik,j(oral) ram saroop, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of fir no.29 dated 27.2.2012 at police station cantt. ferozepur, district ferozepur not district fazilka, , for an offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-b ipc. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is accused of being only an attesting witness of an agreement which was filed in a criminal case by way of compromise. according to him, the petitioner disputes the existence of his thumb impression on the document. he further submits that even if it is taken that his thumb impression is there on the document, he is not a beneficiary in the transaction. he further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required for investigation of the case. crl. misc. not m-40631 of 2012 =2= learned state counsel,on instructions from asi tarsem sharma, admits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that his custodial interrogation is not required. he also does not dispute the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is only an attesting witness of the document which was filed by way of compromise in a criminal case and that he is not a beneficiary of the same as also that he has joined the investigation, i find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 21.12.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute. february 11,2013 (vijender singh malik ) jiten judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M-40631 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:

11. 02.2013 Ram Saroop ..Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present:- Mr.B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Amit Chaudhry, DAG Punjab.

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL) Ram Saroop, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.29 dated 27.2.2012 at Police Station Cantt.

Ferozepur, District Ferozepur not District Fazilka, , for an offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is accused of being only an attesting witness of an agreement which was filed in a criminal case by way of compromise.

According to him, the petitioner disputes the existence of his thumb impression on the document.

He further submits that even if it is taken that his thumb impression is there on the document, he is not a beneficiary in the transaction.

He further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required for investigation of the case.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-40631 of 2012 =2= Learned State counsel,on instructions from ASI Tarsem Sharma, admits that the petitioner has joined the investigation and that his custodial interrogation is not required.

He also does not dispute the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is only an attesting witness of the document which was filed by way of compromise in a criminal case and that he is not a beneficiary of the same as also that he has joined the investigation, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and order dated 21.12.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

February 11,2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial